However, according to the Milwaukee Elections Commission and the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, voters do not need to provide proof of age in order to register. All they have to do is check off a box on the registration form certifying that they are a qualified elector, a U.S. citizen and at least 18 years old by the time they vote.

"The whole system relies on the honestly and integrity of the individual," Sue Edmond, Milwaukee's Election Commission director, told the MacIver News Service. "If we find after the election that they lied, they could be charged with a felony."

The new voter ID law is not currently being enforced (because of the judgment of 2 Dane County judges). Interestingly, the new Marquette Law School poll, surveying likely voters in the recall election found that "61% percent favored requiring a government-issued photo id to vote, while 37 percent opposed that." People really do worry about voter fraud. Given the polls that show Walker leading — the Marquette poll has him 7 points ahead — if Barrett wins, people should be suspicious.

"I'm always concerned about voter fraud, you know, being from Kenosha, and quite frankly having lived through seeing some of it happen," Reince Priebus said. "Certainly in Milwaukee we have seen some of it, and I think it's been documented. Any notion that's not the case, it certainly is in Wisconsin. I'm always concerned about it, which is why I think we need to do a point or two better than where we think we need to be, to overcome it."...

Lester Pines, an attorney involved in a separate legal challenge to the voter ID law, also denounced Priebus' comments, saying they were baseless.

"His statement that Republicans need to outperform Democrats by one to two percent to account for vote fraud is an absolute, total, 100% lie," Pines said. "It is a fantasy. And Reince Priebus and his ilk are saying this and they're saying it over and over and over because they're using the well-known propaganda tool called 'the big lie.' If you say it enough times, people will believe it. There's no other way to characterize this except that Reince Priebus is a liar."

"The Big Lie" is indeed a well-known propaganda tool, but it is not simply something that's repeated a lot. "The Big Lie" refers to "colossal untruths" of the sort that ordinary people don't even think of telling, which they don't suspect because "they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." I'm quoting Mein Kampf there. It's Adolph Hitler's term. Know it. Use it, but know what you're saying when you use it and only use it when you mean it, Mr. Pines. Don't make casual, vague allusions to Hitler. It's not right.

It's not a bad idea for high school students who are 18 to get a ride to the polls during the school day.

It's not necessary either. The polls are open after school.

People think that it's so important for young people to vote for the sake of voting. I don't know that I agree. I was excited to vote the first time when I was 18. My kids seem to be intimidated by it. They (rightly) feel like they don't understand the issues or know who they'd prefer to vote for. I think that's taking it seriously, and a good thing.

Lester Pines is beyond reprehensible. The "big lie" is that voter ID laws and the elimination of same-day voter registration will somehow violate the civil rights of black people. It is an obvious, massive, whopping lie because Pines and his ilk can never explain WHY it is so. Why does nobody call bullshit on people like Pines?

So the school is rounding up kids and taking them to go vote, eh? Supervised by teachers?

The Boy Scouts used to run "Get Out The Vote" campaigns. They don't do so anymore. Why? Because of accusations that a given unit's leadership or sponsor would know full well that their area was Democratic or Republican and that it was therefore acting in a partisan fashion. How much anti-Walker commentary have these kids been hearing from their teachers? And then the teachers troop them to the polls to make sure that they get the end result. Schools should not be at all involved in such a process.

"James said...BTW, I just had an encounter with two We Are Wisconsin canvassers; it didn't go well for them."

We had a bunch of WorkingAmerica hippies canvassing my neighborhood. Five of them popped out a mini-van with Colorado plates and headed in different directions. They avoided my house and others on my block that had Walker signage. The van had a precinct map of Milwaukee County and a Working America manual on the dash. Working America is part of the AFL-CIO. Local grass roots effort my ass. A quick visit to the Working America website shows they think Milwaukee County is key to a Barrett victory.

leslyn said...A tag to this post is "using children in politics." If the students were under 18, you are right. If they are 18 or over, then they can go on the bus to vote if they damn well please.

--------------That sort of depends...doesn't it? What if it is teachers union activists getting all the 18+ students and telling them if they Truly CARE and FEEEEEEL for the terrible injustices that Walker is inflicting on Teacher-Heroes and other union heroes..they will sign up on a list and show up for the bus that will take them to vote properly...

And, errrr, civic involvement is a component in factoring final grades...and all the Final tests and essays have to be done shortly and grades submitted.

Do these kids get extra credit? A free pass? They get something under-age students don't get?

There is no law against giving people money to vote (at least in my jurisdiction) and there is no way the teacher could know who the students actually voted for.

Campaigns are ugly. The issue here isn't what the teacher is doing. The issue is the potential for fraud because identification for voting is not currently necessary and because -- apparently, unbelievably -- there is no background check of even a cursory kind when people register to vote.

If there's a bus accident, it will be sad. But so what? Should we all live in bunkers and never leave?

Lester Pines is a brilliant lawyer, Scott Walker was unwise to fire him. Preibus and Walker are habitual and serial liars, or they are both grossly misinformed with the most basic inner workings of the electoral system in Wisconsin, rendering both unfit to serve any public office. It's just disgraceful for them to push a knowable lie to the people of Wisconsin the way they do.

That said, this all points to a tightening election if they pulling out this boogeyman. But slandering the state you govern for political purposes and damaging the integrity of the process has no place in a civil society.

What if Mayor Barrett provided City buses to bus City workers to the polls?

That would probably be a campaign finance violation, and I am guessing it would be a due process violation under the Wisconsin Constitution. But I am no expert on Wisconsin electoral law, and it's not going to happen so it doesn't matter.

This does sound like an interesting activity, however. I would have liked to have done this as a high-schooler (although I didn't turn 18 'til I was in college, but only 1/3rd of the students actually voted, which sounds about right).

Lester Pines is beyond reprehensible. The "big lie" is that voter ID laws and the elimination of same-day voter registration will somehow violate the civil rights of black people. It is an obvious, massive, whopping lie because Pines and his ilk can never explain WHY it is so. Why does nobody call bullshit on people like Pines?

Because Pines feels black people are mentally challenged children. As do most Progressives. It's the only rational explanation for their vehement hatred of photo ID requirements for voting. Saying it's "too hard" to get a photo ID is like saying "It's too hard" to wipe one's butt appropriately.

A tag to this post is "using children in politics." If the students were under 18, you are right. If they are 18 or over, then they can go on the bus to vote if they damn well please.

If we had photo ID requirements, it'd be known what age they are. Instead, we have to rely on the word of high school seniors and no group is more honest and less likely to lie than they...apparently.

It's just disgraceful for them to push a knowable lie to the people of Wisconsin the way they do.

So, you don't trust somebody to give their actual age to buy beer --- but to vote? Sure, no problem. If I claim to be you in order to access your bank account, would you be upset about that? Because, if you're consistent, you wouldn't be. Because expecting somebody to have photo ID is evil or something.

I get my all my crystals turned into meth at the general store in Butte, Montana and I know for a fact that that unwashed meth cooks are crossing over the Porcupine Mountains to vote for Mitt Ronmey, the next Presidente of Amercia.

A fairly young woman and a slightly older man came my door. The woman did all the talking; she had a slight accent that reminded me of when I lived in Southern Indiana. I'm fairly certain she isn't from Wisconsin.

Since there aren't any other black families in my subdivision they look taken aback when I answered the door.

The conversation went like this:Woman: Hi, we're with We Are Wisconsin. Do you know about the recall of Scott Walker?Me: I can't help knowing about it ...its been in the news every day since last February.Woman: What do you think about Scott Walker?Me: I think he didn't go far enoughWoman: (mumbles something about voting)Me: I already voted for Walker by absentee ballot.Woman: Oh, okay. What's your name so we can cross you off our list?

As for the "big lie" that voter fraud is a problem... well, it is, isn't it, if one fussed about Florida in 2000?

If fraud is important or not, what is important, vitally, fundamentally, important, is voter confidence in the system. This is a case where the truth doesn't matter nearly so much as the perception. Do voters trust the system? And if they don't trust the system, what can be done to increase confidence?

And, really, who's been trashing confidence in the system? Republicans fuss about installing some simple checks on potential voter fraud. We're Americans, we like our folk-myths about dead voters and political shenanigans, but only as colorful stories about the past. In the here and now we'd prefer to think that everyone involved takes fraud seriously and is willing to work together to ensure the fidelity of the polls and the appearance of fidelity at the polls.

We'd also like those aspiring to high office to prefer the good of the republic over their own ambitions and concede graciously instead of destroying that public trust.

Cedarford said... leslyn said...A tag to this post is "using children in politics." If the students were under 18, you are right. If they are 18 or over, then they can go on the bus to vote if they damn well please.

--------------That sort of depends...doesn't it? What if it is teachers union activists getting all the 18+ students and telling them if they Truly CARE and FEEEEEEL for the terrible injustices that Walker is inflicting on Teacher-Heroes and other union heroes..they will sign up on a list and show up for the bus that will take them to vote properly...

And, errrr, civic involvement is a component in factoring final grades...and all the Final tests and essays have to be done shortly and grades submitted.

What if, what if. From what we may actually know from the information given, about 30 students showed up. That's about 15% of the senior graduating class.

If that somehow shows a conspiracy to coerce students, or for students to en masse elevate their grades, it's eluding me. We don't even know how they voted--and they don't have to tell us.

Why not? It isn't the job of public schools to take students to vote. Citizens don't pay taxes to buy school buses to take students to vote. Teachers are not paid to take students to vote.

Dem activist teachers are doing this to extend the dem get out the vote program and get the public to pay for it. High school students, being young and ignorant, tend to vote dem. Dem pols realize this and work hard to get out the teenage vote. Using public school resources to aid the dem get out the vote effort is morally wrong, probably illegal, and should be vigorously fought by the GOP.

This is the question, do they treat legal age differently than underage students?

Seniors (or juniors) who are 18 can sign out of school if they wish -- but I *think* the parent has to allow that to happen. That is, parents have to sign a form that says student is now responsible for their own comings/goings. I don't think it automatically happens when the kid turns 18, at least here in Madison.

I get all my crabs removed in Stumpy Point and I know for a fact that there are pretend republican journalists crossing over the Virginia border posing as dead men in order to vote for Mitt Ronmey, the next Presidente of Amercia.

In Wisconsin an election worker needs to try offering them a beer, but add in standard disclaimers requiring permission from parents or an ID proving age, unless it is an abortion and then all rules are not applicable.

Leslyn,"The evil here" is that the public school system provided free (though at least slightly coerced) transportation to the polls for potential voters in an election that the public school managers are vitally interested in.

This not much different from the mayor rounding up city employees at the City Hall and City Yards and busing them to the polls in City buses.

With its increasing fealty to an older-white-male-Southern base, the GOP has moved itself toward structural-minority status...therefore, it creates voter-fraud boogie-men to combat, purges the voter rolls of undesirables (Non-republicans)whether or not they are legally registered to vote, and of course, pass legislation merely to weaken political opponents.

Machine's right. When you have a failing educational system indoctrinating young minds into liberalism paired with so many dependent on the dole, it truly is hard to persuade them by mere responsibility and an attempt to prevent the country going over the fiscal cliff.

machine said..."With its increasing fealty to an older-white-male-Southern base, the GOP has moved itself toward structural-minority status...therefore, it creates voter-fraud boogie-men to combat, purges the voter rolls of undesirables (Non-republicans)whether or not they are legally registered to vote, and of course, pass legislation merely to weaken political opponents.

Can't grow your party, so you must reduce the other...

How proud you must be..."

Nice try, widen the discussion when you can't win the discussion based on facts.

The overwhelming majority of Americans (i.e. those that are not dem hacktivists) are concerned about voter fraud, want to protect the integrity of the voting process, and are willing to take at least minimal precautions to prevent voter fraud.

The fact that dems are so rabidly against any effort to protect the integrity of the voting process lets you know that cheating in elections is an important tool for dems to steal close elections.

Democrats and liberals don't seem to trust the voting system either, not one bit. So I'm wondering what they propose to try to make it more reliable and trustworthy? What have they suggested that the Republicans have shot down?

Or maybe, what is really desired is deniability? When things don't go the way they want they can just announce that it's all bogus anyway, not to be trusted, the Republican didn't really win?

I don't quite understand... making sure that the voter rolls are up to date and accurate is a good thing, isn't it? And if there is a problem with people being struck unfairly because they've got the same name and SSN as a convicted felon, well then, there is room for oversight and making sure that people aren't unjustly removed.

Machine with the potent comeback. I get teh sense he feels that minorities inherently equals Democrats. Just like he feels only Southern white males vote Republican. And I bet machine claims to be against stereotypes.

This stinks to high heaven. Even if you buy the notion that this somehow was a valid civics lesson, why did they need to vote in person absentee as well as register. What's the rush? Isn't part of the lesson learning when the polls are open and exercising your right and obligation then? No this looks like let's get the little ones registered and make sure they vote with their teachers present.

Even if somehow it was 100% on the up and up, the optics on this are just terrible.

Structural minority status has been descending upon the Republicans for 50 years, but always lands on the Democrats.

But keep on believing, Machine. Whatever gets you through your glum days. Whatever makes your sad life worth living as Walker wins the recall election, Obama loses, and Republicans make further gains in the House and state legislatures.

Certain Democrats have been waiting for demographic change to drop unearned victory into their laps in the same way their grandfathers used to count on the dialectical forces of historical necessity. Sadly, the biggest demographic trend these days is the graying, not the browning, of the population. Plus, out of their whole motley collection of ethnic blocs, Imaginary-Americans are the only ones who actually turn out to vote.

We don't have compulsory voting in this country. Why should these students be put in a spot where they might feel compelled to vote? They could feel their grades might depend on going along with the school's "everyone should vote program". We wouldn't accept such pressure from a private employer.

"So, for Harro, when some celebrity politician plucked from obscurity and now fading back into obscurity says something Harro doesn't like, it's bad. Awful. The worst thing imaginable."

Where did I say that it was a problem at all?

Its the AA funhouse logic that I find, in this case, *interesting*. Observe the blase, how-could-they-possibly-be-botheredd attitude she strikes, in relaion to the Blood Libel invocation. Compare that to the high moral italics at the end of the post, the OMG ITS NOT RIGHT that this official would invoke Hitler in this "vague" way.

Harro -- Nobody cares when somebody uses the phrase blood libel. And if they do, they can go fuck themselves and you can go fuck yourself if you care, because it's a free country and free speech, particularly political speech, is absolutely protected.

Vote fraud is a real, serious problem which disenfranchises legitimate voters, robbing them of their constitutional rights, and which subverts our entire set of political institutions.

It is simply asinine for you to make this stupid, pointless comparison, but it is emblematic of loser thought. Your side is going to lose next week. It may get crushed. Whatever the case, your whole set of short-term political goals is a lost cause.

So, what do you do? You bring up Sarah Palin. Sarah Fucking Palin. And some remark Althouse about an remark Palin made, none of which had anything to do with anything. Really, dude? Really?

""The Pulaski principal tells us that the field trip not been done previously,"

Ah...so..some teachers decided there was something special about this "election".

And I'm sure in discussing the uniqueness of a recall, they explored how it came about with zero conflict of interest.And wearing Barrett buttons on the way to the polls was simply providing examples of traditional political expression.

Walter, click on the link under the Bloggingheads video box that reads "Is Palin's 'blood libel' much ado about nothing?" You will hear Glenn Loury and Ann Althouse joining forces in an excellent explanation of why Palin's use of the phrase "blood libel" was unexceptionable-- and, therefore, of why harrogate is full of shit.

Seven, you're all vitriol, but no content here. I really think you are missing the point of my comment. Either that or intentionally shwarping it for some reason.

1)I did not weigh in on the charges of vote fraud element of the post, one way or the other.

2)I don't care about Palin. I certainly do not, nor have I ever, harbored her any ill will.

Indeed, What I've seen you write about her in the past, actually, sums up my own views on her pretty well.

3)But--and here's what my comment was very clearly about, dude--

Ann's affect of moral opposition to the invocation of Hitler, in this case, reminded me of how silly people were when they lost their minds over Palin crying Blood Libel. And then I remembered that Ann also thought it was silly then. The two put together says a lot about how seriously one can take the "It's not right" declaration.

Harro -- Then talk about invoking the Big Lie. Perhaps you can relate it to Sarah Palin somehow, a person you don't care about, so much so that you brought her up in this post for no discernible reason whatsoever.

The point is, let's NOT get all into a tizzy because Pines talked about the Big Lie. Let's not cry "It isn't right", as though our scruples are inflamed.

I mean, c'mon. We've already established that such things are no big deal. Haven't we?

Let's not affect some sort of moral stance about such things, now. I mean, why would we get all worked up about it in THIS context? (or in the context of someone saying something critical of a banker. THAT's also "not right". but anyway....)

Surely the strong pro-Walker stance has nothing to do with the sudden moral-rhetorical turn?

Sigh. I wish it were that way here. Sadly, a decade+ ago the Dells convinced the Republican state Legislature that they HAD to have kids to work through Labor Day. So the State Mandated a post-Labor Day start. Now all the workers at the Dells come from eastern Europe (or they had, last time I was there) because the Dells is much less seasonal now, so the need isn't there any more. But the law sticks around.

...they're saying it over and over and over because they're using the well-known propaganda tool called 'the big lie.'

You will notice, perhaps, the use of the term "propaganda tool" here, as opposed to, say, "spin doctoring technique" or "PR strategy." This word choice clearly is meant to call back the origins of the term, and its well-known association with Goebbels and Hitler, and is NOT merely some generic contemporary usage that is far removed from its original context--as was the case with Palin and "blood libel."

Unless, I guess, you think the Spanish Inquisition is never far from people's minds in the 21st-Century US.

Surely the strong pro-Walker stance has nothing to do with the sudden moral-rhetorical turn?

There we have a partial answer—harrogate is upset and concerned that Althouse has uneven rhetorical morals.

It gets better. Seven Machos suggested Harrogate may have an unusual interest in Palin. Look at harrogate’s first sentence again: When Palin used the term "Blood Libel" to cast herself as a victim, it was no biggie.

The context of Palin’s use of the term was in response to the Giffords shooting. She said:

Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn

Perhaps harrogate thinks Palin was telling a lie but it really was a “biggie” Else why the charge of hypocrisy against Althouse?

Get it? Big Lie? Harrogate thinks Palin is like Hitler!

Alternatively, Althouse should have had a moral reaction to Palin's rhetoric; but in context, that seems absurd.

Speaking of class, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has announced the the President-who-articulated-a-cigar-in-the-vagina-of-a-young-woman-in-the-Oval-Office will be campaigning for Barrett in the state Friday. That is class!